Prior to the Supreme Court’s SAS decision, the PTAB would frequently deny institution of redundant grounds presented in a petition. It was thus incumbent on Petitioners to explain the differences between various grounds to avoid a finding of redundancy and partial denial. Post-SAS, Petitioners have often filed multiple petitions challenging the same patent for a variety of reasons. For example, in some cases the limited word count does not provide sufficient room to fully lay out all of Petitioner's argument. The Comcast decision makes clear that if Petitioners decide to file multiple petitions, they must provide some explanation of why the PTAB should institute all of the petitions. Petitioners must also consider the potential estoppel effect of a non-instituted petition. At this point, it is unclear how district courts will treat the non-instituted petitions. They may follow the Shaw and HP cases, limiting estoppel to those grounds that were actually instituted. There is also a risk, however, that district courts may find that the grounds in the second petition “could have been raised” in the first petition, thereby estopping petitioner from raising them in a related district court proceeding.
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.